By Guest Contributor Aymar Jean Christian, cross-posted from Televisual

If you pay attention to web shows by and about people of color, you probably have come across 12 Steps to Recovery, a romantic comedy series about Parrish Diaz, a jingle composer and actor dealing with a hard break-up. In the show, Parrish’s friends decide the only way he’ll get over his ex is to do a romantic “12 step” program: go on dates with 12 different women.

From Hitch and Knocked Up to The Best Man and (500) Days of Summer, romantic comedies about men have always been popular, if less so than female-driven ones. Producers see them as a good way to get a more balanced male-to-female ratio in your audience.

What makes 12 Steps to Recovery a little different is its use of Parrish’s story to showcase different kinds of women. Viewers end up learning more about the girls than the leading man. Each episode features a new date with a different kind of stock female trope, from transwomen to Southern belles. “Not all of us women are carrying baggage,” Parrish’s friend Dani says in one episode.

The series, which has a bunch of episodes released but is still in post-production for the remaining few, re-launched on KoldCast last month.

“I wanted the launch on Koldcast to be something different, something special,” series creator Tony Clomax said, noting how he re-cut a few episodes for the release.

Clomax said his goal as a producer, director and editor is to raise the bar for black independent content, getting away from the mediocrity he sees on the web. “I’m not going to put something out there that hasn’t been through a sound mix,” he said. ”We’re getting away from our traditions…Don’t just do something to get by.”

Still he believes the web is overall positive for content creators, especially in the black market. It reveals how the likes of Tyler Perry do not represent the full extent of the culture.

“It helps filmmakers build their brand and build an audience,” he said. “That’s been the cry: we want to see ourselves, we want to see our stories.”

12 Steps is sleek, beautifully lit and appropriately paced for a rom-com, though some of its story lines, particularly the plots for the first two dates, might shock and rankle some viewers — it’s on the scandalous side of things. This seems like a strategy to get viewers talking, which might have been a smart move. On the web, the producer never gets the final word, and it’s better if your audience feels compelled to blog or tweet about the latest episode.

Meanwhile, Clomax is staying busy with a number of projects, including directing a series called Disciplinary Actions, a Law & Order-type series on labor and unions (that seems timely!). He has a number of features in the works, including a possible campaign to turn 12 Steps into one, and two others, a documentary called You Only Live Twice about a former gang member who decided to change his life, and a narrative film called Harlem Boils.

The most interesting aspect of 12 Steps for me has been its financing model. Instead of seeking sponsorship from large, corporate brands like many independent web series, Clomax and co-producer Stuart Films, run by Emelyn Stuart, approached smaller national brands and crafted commercials and placements for them. The series initially ran on BBN, the Black Broadcasting Network, giving those companies TV exposure they otherwise couldn’t afford.

12 Steps is also on numerous websites. Many users might find them on YouTube, where they’ve been viewed over 70,000 times. On Blip TV, however, it’s been viewed 800,000 times. Clomax is particularly proud of its deal with a new distributor, Zora TV, which targets black women.

In the end Clomax thinks creators spend too much time angling to get on TV and not enough time exploiting the plethora of opportunities the web has offered.

“There are so many ways of monetizing…instead of waiting for television to say ‘we’re going to give you an opportunity,’” he said.

I’ll end with posting the episode with one of my favorite performances from 12 Steps‘ many actresses, Malikha Mallette, who hilariously caricatures the Southern woman Bernadette in her impromptu blind date with Parrish.

I guess I’m not the only one who found the solemnity-yet-randomness of the Black History Month Minutes in my youth a tad ridiculous.  I understood why the segments were needed and learned a lot from them–and still found my hand in front of my giggling mouth.  The comic troupe Elite Delta Force 3 may have felt the same way.

This is their send-up of some of the women–and a couple of the men–who helped shape the civil rights movements in the US and South Africa as well as the foolish tropes of the Real Housewives franchise; the troupe is more directly spoofing Real Housewives of Atlanta. Check out The Real Housewives of Civil Rights (RHOCR).

Yes, that’s Wayne Brady as “The Dr. Reverend Martin Luther King.” Yes, that’s “Coretta Scott King” (Robin Thede) admitting “Malcolm X” fathered the youngest King kid.  (As much as we know about Dr. King’s marital infidelities, as far as I know, all King’s children were sired by him.)  Yes, that is Marilyn Monroe (Angela Yarborough), who The Root says is supposed to resemble RHOA‘s Kim Zolciak. (Other sources say that Monroe was actually pro-racial equality, so her inclusion has some historical basis.)  And yes, that is a rotary car phone.

I’d put this webisode in the same humor section as Black Moses Barbie: both are taking the piss out of the the near-deified images we have of critically beloved Black heroes. Like using Barbie dolls to encapsulate the story of Harriet Tubman, Elite Delta Force uses the “oh no they didn’t” frisson of placing these women and men–often seen as paragons of righteous Black folks who did their damnedest to uplift The Race in their own ways–in situations and saying things that would get their Righteous Black Folks’ Cards yanked.   Viewers like me–deeply ingrained with love for what these people did that allowed me, the Altanta housewives, and Elite Delta Force to be here and be our Black female selves in 2011–can both raise our eyebrows and laugh out loud.

Where the troupe goes off-point for me is with Winnie Mandela and Malcolm X. The chracterization doesn’t seem so specifically and historically based on Mandela so much as I got an affable Earth Mother Africa stereotype with a generic “African” accent and generic “African” gear.  I felt the same about how El Hajj Malik El-Shabazz is portrayed: I understand that he is a man rendered inelegant due to dealing with the fallout from a tryst with his wife’s friend, but I think it would have been funnier if the actor played with Shabazz’s well-known fiery eloquence, even if he has to Denzel it.

I also know some people are feeling some kind of way about RHOCR, as witnessed in the comment section on YouTube.

while there was some humor; I thought it was in poor taste for the most part. It belittled the true ladies who were in their own right important in the struggle for equal and human rights.

…

Wow somehow this seems wrong cause its Black History month . Sorry none of it was funny to me . Those people lives has now been rendered a joke . This is a mockery . But you wanna know what’s funny? They suffered gaining us Civil Rights only for somebody to call something like this humor? If white people would have did this I wonder if y’all would be laughing . This is a slap in the face coming from us our pride is gone.

…

wow ..the late Coretta Scott King is referred to as a b!tch, and a “baby’s Mama”, to someone Martin once was at odds with ..and ya’ll just think we should laugh at it? That’s the problem …blacks folks laugh at a lil’ too much of everythang, and what’s even sadder, is that we’ll laugh along w/ whites at this kinda shit..(people who are just laughing AT us) *smDh*

…

Coonery!!!!

I can respect that–it seems that we young(er)bloods are laughing at people who died tragic or vicious deaths or are still alive. Our laughter seems to be disrespecting our elders.  But it begs a couple of questions: when does it become “safe” to laugh about the ancestors and our own current ridiculousness?  Does every conversation about Black heroes have to be a Teaching Moment? Would this be the kind of comedy Dr. King would come back and yell at us for?

I’m not sure.  I just plan to keep my hand in front of my mouth.

Image credit: granemporium.com

Making queer Chicana experience comedic affirms our pains and glories – hijole, just the fact that we exist and thrive. If I flip the dynamic around and poke fun at whiteness or heterosexuality, that’s the work of resistance, because I’ve inverted the paradigm and I’m using comedy to laugh at those structures that work to make us invisible. Since I’m writing with a queer Chicana audience in mind, it’s meant for us. We recognize the stereotype[s] – even how we sometimes play into them ourselves. If I pole fun at lesbians of color (with a progressive agenda, of course), then it’s the work of healing – and that’s the best effect of laughing in a group setting. The roar of the audience on some jokes points to that collectivity of experience and culture.

—Adelina Anthony, Bitch Magazine “Sit Down Comedy” Fall 2009 issue.

When I was at Yale, Mixed Company had the reputation of being the “funny singing group.” You know, as opposed to the “hot singing group” (that would have been the Baker’s Dozen, or the “BD’s” for men, and Something Extra, aka “Sextra,” for women) or the “serious singing group” (Red Hot + Blue) or the “angry feminist group” (The New Blue, to which I belonged).

But that was a long-ass time ago, kiddies. And my-oh-my how things have changed, as evidenced by Mixed Company’s current YouTube parody
of Beyoncé’s “Single Ladies”:

Does the world really need another “Single Ladies” spoof? Or, for that matter, more pedestrian rice jokes? Don’t get me wrong, we rove a good lice joke. And of coulse we rove it rong time. We just don’t rove these ones.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ve gotta go make the rice and make it nice, and then shoot myself in the face for actually having to sit through that.

A reader named Gloria sends in this juicy little scan… She informs me that actress/author/comedienne Amy Sedaris did a show last week at Haverford College. Gloria’s brother (who happens to be Chinese American) got a copy of Sedaris’ book I Like You: Hospitality Under The Influence signed for her.

The above scan is what she apparently inscribed on the inside of the book. Yes, you’re reading that right. As if “Ching Chong” wasn’t enough, the rudimentary buck-toothed chink-eyed caricature is sort of icing on the racist cake.

What the hell, Amy Sedaris? Is that supposed to be clever? Are we supposed to write that off as “quirky”? I’ve never been a huge fan of hers… but I’ve never disliked her either. That has changed. I have to wonder what Gloria’s brother thought when she handed this back to him. Not cool. That’s racist! (Thanks, Gloria.)

UPDATE: Amy Sedaris apparently has a bit of history with the ching-chongery… Check out her opening remarks in this video posted on BlogHer back in 2007. Doesn’t take very long for her to bust out that “ching chong.” Just rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it? Like it ain’t no thing.

Also, check out this Believer interview from several years ago where she lists her turn-offs as: “The beach, having to pay for things, racist people, Orientals.” Is that supposed to be funny?

A little more Googling reveals that she actually has a habit of referring to people of Asian descent as “ching chong” at appearances and events. She also regularly signs her books with “ching chong” and a sketch of the buck-toothed ching chong thing. Oh, I get it. She’s supposed to funny and off-the-wall, and so we’re supposed to excuse her for playful, asinine racist mockery.

Please Note: This is NOT a D.L. Hughley fansite. You cannot contact him directly through this site, or leave feedback about his show.

Before I sat down to watch D. L. Hughley Breaks the News, I was skeptical of the whole project. D.L. Hughley doesn’t immediately come to mind when I think of a comedian that is well versed in politics and current events. The author of the NY Times article seems to concur, noting:

For the last week Mr. Hughley, 45, has had to arrive every morning at his office at CNN in Manhattan at the ungodly (for a comedian) hour of 11 a.m. to digest reams of information from newspapers, Web sites, television and talk radio. He has no time to goof off during the 8-to-12-hour days; only the occasional moment to glance at his new profile in the CNN company directory that lists him as an anchor.

“I’m like, ‘Come on, man,’ ” an incredulous Mr. Hughley said in a recent interview. “I barely even know how to read. I’ve got a G.E.D.”

Just 10 days ago CNN announced that Mr. Hughley would be the host of a new comedy-news show, “D. L. Hughley Breaks the News,” which has its premiere Saturday at 10 p.m. Eastern time.

AverageBro already laid down his thoughts on the show, writing:

I’m not saying Hughley isn’t funny. His early days of Comic View were classic. And for the record, his standup career is far more successful than anything Stewart did pre-Daily Show.

But DL just doesn’t seem to have the gravitas to pull this off. His shortlived Comedy Central talk show, Weekends At The DL, was atrocious. His appearances on shows like Real Time With Bill Maher and The Glenn Beck Show don’t give me the impression that this cat is extremely knowledgeable when it comes to politricks.

He also brings up another large elephant in the room when it comes to D.L. Hughley’s idea of comedy:

Is it wrong for me to still be upset about that “nappy headed hoes” comment more than a year after the fact? Prolly not, but I’m sorry, I just cannot get over that. That sh*t was a straight up James T. Harris b*tch move in my book.

I wonder how dude could go home and look his wife and daughter in the eyes after that bullsh*t.

I prolly won’t watch this show, so I guess I shouldn’t bash it. Could it possibly be any worse than Chocolate News or The Tony Rock Project? Even though I wished CNN’s affirmative action hire had been Roland Martin instead, I guess I should just be happy to see black men working, no matter how mediocre the product.

Nah. Bump that.

If you wanna support a black man on TeeVee, peep BET’s slept on Somebodies. Now that’s comedy.

Screw DL Hughley. A true Nappy Headed Hoe!

Melissa Harris Lacewell was also enraged, but for a different reason:

I don’t have words to express my irritation with this development. CNN has been nearly lily white. Black commentators, guests, and hosts have been the rare exception rather than the rule. This is a network that responded to Hurricane Katrina, the most visible class and race disaster of our age, by promoting the blond, blue-eyed, Vanderbilt heir Anderson Cooper to a two-hour nightly show. They have now decided that the appropriate response to a likely Obama administration is to have a black comedian host a farcical news show. Hmmm. [...]

CNN is purportedly the most respected source for news. We are sliding into an economic recession rivaling the Great Depression. We are fighting wars on multiple fronts. Trust in our political system is at an all time low. This is not really a funny moment. In today’s NYTimes, recent Nobel winner Paul Krugman even opined that American support for Barack Obama represented our nation “desperately seeking seriousness.” So why does CNN think that black people have to serve as the court jesters just as we are moving into the White House?

It feels to me like the reassertion of racist notions of black people and our proper place in the world. Sometimes popular culture and media operate as forces of regressive and reactionary sentiments even as the political system is changing. It happened during the feminist movement. As white women were gaining control over their fertility, asserting their independence, and moving into the workforce, popular culture developed a new feminine aesthetic saying that women must be rail thin in order to be beautiful and desirable. Whew! Don’t worry about women competing for power if they are so worried about the size of their thighs that they starve themselves and stay at the gym all day.

Same deal here. No worries about black people as serious contenders for political leadership on the world stage if we can be safely constrained to our stereotypical role as the comedic relief.

Both Melissa Harris-Lacewell and AverageBro raise good points that should not be overlooked. It is important to understand the personal context (as expressed in AverageBro’s post) and the political context (as expressed in Harris-Lacewell’s post) as to why there might be opposition to the show.

However, after watching the show, it appears to hold some promise.

I am still not convinced that D.L. Hughley is right for the anchor position on the show – and from what I saw, it doesn’t appear that he is convinced either. He was visibly nervous on camera and stumbled over multiple jokes. He also didn’t seem very comfortable onstage, in stark contrast to many of his stand up performances. But I can respect that – it is difficult to try something that is kind of out of your league, and there are so many ways political comedy can go wrong.

And indeed, some of the sketches felt extremely stale – the issue of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac was recast with Donnell Rawlings as Freddie Mack, with all the predictable “government and politicians as pimps” jokes. There was a fake attack ad from the RNC, which is fairly unmemorable save for the last few lines – “You know he’s black, don’t you?” and “Paid for by the Committee for Irresponsible Racism.” Often times Hughley talked over guests and the editing was kind of strange.

Yet, there were parts of the show I found quite compelling. I enjoyed the CNN Fact Checkers breaking in on DL’s opening monolouge (though most write ups hated that part), and the sketch where DL Hughley actually attends a Palin rally and tries to get them to vote for a Palin/Hughley ticket in 2012. The responses to his questions were classic.

What I most enjoyed were the frequent format changes and his discussions with the experts. His segment with Neil deGrasse Tyson was my favorite, but I’m biased toward people who like to talk about astrophysics. (It’s a total brain crush, for those of y’all who can read between the lines.) Hughley’s other notable segment was where he compared the rise of Barack Obama to the trajectory of black presidents in films. Illustrating his point beautifully was a 1933 film called “Rufus Jones for President” with a young Sammy Davis Jr. declaring that pork chops would be free once he was sworn in as President. It’s Minstrel-icious. You can see the film reels and Tyson’s segment in the video below:

I hope that this show turns out well. And it probably will if it can zero in on how to produce a smart, factual comedy show. I’d love to see more experts, more intelligent discussion, and please, producers, let D.L. be who he is – the asshole who cracks jokes both on and with the smart folks. I’ll check it out next week and report back on how it progresses.

That is, if my brain doesn’t rot from watching Chocolate News.

I was excited to watch Chris Rock’s fifth HBO special, “Kill the Messenger,” which aired last night. But by the end of the 90-minute show, I was disappointed, as I was at the end of “Never Scared,” the comedian’s last cable effort. When Rock is stalking the stage and talking about race, politics and social issues, he is at his best: insightful, creative, and most importantly: funny as hell. But when he jokes about women and relationships, he comes off as pathological and bitter. Worse (since Rock is a comedian), the women/dating/marriage schtick is hackneyed and unfunny.

First, let me say, I’m not humorless. I’m not so wrapped up in political correctness about race or gender, that I can’t find humor in the taboo. My bias is toward nuanced, layered and dry comedy. I like comics who hide message and social critique and pokes at life’s absurdities among the punchlines. I like the off-kilter and the edgy. I hate broad comedy and don’t get slapstick. And while I find “clean” comedy boring, I lose patience with jokes that simply parrot stereotypes or offend simply for the sake of offending. And here’s a confession: I saw “Tropic Thunder” and loved it, even though I noticed all the things about it that people have found so offensive. So see, I laugh at stuff.

Back in the day, Chris Rock was one of my favorite comedians. The Chris Rock I like is the one who last night pointed out that while the handful of black people living in his tony New Jersey neighborhood (Eddie Murphy, Mary J. Blige) have exceptional careers, his white neighbor is a…dentist. Rock jokes that for a black dentist to make his way into that neighborhood, he’d have to invent teeth.

Another highlight of last night’s special was Rock’s thoughts on the 2008 presidential election. Barack Obama is so cool and calm, Rock says, you’d think he believes a black man getting the most votes is going to mean something. After all, society has been known to change the rules when black folks are playing the game. “Good you got the most votes. Too bad you lost. We don’t do it that way anymore.” Rock remains one of the few comedians who can kill with observations about race that move beyond the “white people do this; black people do that” tropes.

Talking about race is where Chris Rock excels, but I understand not wanting to be ghettoized as a “race comic.” Maybe that’s why his last two HBO specials have seemed to include more men vs. women material. It’s a pity, because his performance is weaker for it.

Early in his act, Rock explains that a black man can’t be president, because a black woman can’t be first lady. That’s right. A black woman can be president, just not first lady. “Because a black woman cannot play the background of a relationship,” says Rock. “Because it’s too much work for the Secret Service,” says Rock. (A black first lady would try to kill the president.) If Obama really wants to be president, Rock suggests, he ought to “get a white girl…cause a white girl will play her position.” Yeah…

The stereotype of the domineering, screeching black woman (and do-whatever-you-say compliant white girl) is old and tired, and every BET ComicView act has already rode it into the ground. If pushing the angry, black woman meme counts as comedy, then someone needs to tell Rush Limbaugh that Rock has stolen his act. He painted Michelle Obama as an angry Sapphire months ago. Shouldn’t a comic as talented as Rock be able to come better than a bloated, racist, Oxycontin-fiending shock jock?

Sadly, no.

Throughout “Kill the Messenger,” Rock never misses a chance to paint women, particularly black women, as adversaries. Much is made about women viewing men as sources of money and stuff. Rock jokes that when a woman sees something she wants, she thinks: “Who can I get to get me that?” Rock isn’t saying all women are golddiggers, but we ain’t messing with no broke…broke…

The idea of a man working to support a slave-driving woman seems a little musty, since most women today, well, have jobs. The act seems particularly odd as it relates to black women. Listen to CNN and black women have done too well. Our degrees, jobs and mortgages have rendered us unloveable, because black men have been left behind. What man wants a self sufficient woman who doesn’t need him? (sarcasm–for those that missed it.) et listen to Rock and black women spend our lives demanding goodies from our miserable partners. Where’s the “it’s funny, cause it’s true?”

In Chris Rock’s world, women are demanding, domineering and manipulative. Marriage and committed relationships are where men go to die. It’s not that I object to men poking fun at the things women do (as long as we can poke back). It’s just that Rock is so relentlessly disdainful toward women in his act, casually spitting “bitches” and betraying no real affection for the opposite sex. His routine comes off as so bitter and disconnected from reality, that I often begin to wonder what trauma has left the comedian so broken. It kills the funny.

They say comedy comes from pain. Surely, many master comedians have hidden dark and troubled sides (Richard Pryor, John Belushi, etc.) Chris Rock’s material about women and relationships (like that of his buddy, Bill Maher) seems to betray some deep fucked-upedness. Do a fan a favor, Chris, stick to the political and social stuff, and save the rest for a therapist.

I really don’t know what to make of this. It’s crazy… but I like it! In a weird twist of racial casting, comedian Bobby Lee will play Senator John McCain on the season premiere of MADtv this Saturday night: Bobby Lee to Play McCain on MADtv.

I kid you not. The proof is in the picture. The segment, “So You Think You Can Dance: President’s Edition,” features Bobby and Arden Myrin as Cindy McCain and Keegan-Michael Key and Erica Ash as Barack and Michelle Obama.

I don’t think Bobby makes a very convincing McCain. More like a John McKang. But I honestly don’t care. I look at that photo, and I laugh. It’s such a weird image. Whiteface, I know. I know. But when was the last time the tables were turned?

UPDATE: Oh snap. Here’s the video of Bobby Lee as John McCain in MADtv‘s “So You Think You Can Dance: President’s Edition” sketch. Not a very good impression of McCain, but does anyone really care?

Warning: Explicit Language

Is there stuff either of you won’t make comedy about? Is there anything you think will always be off-limits?

Kate Rigg: Not to me. [...] That’s a very personal question, though. Do I think that people should get up on stage and wantonly use racist language? No, I do not. However, I do not think that racist language should be banned from a comedy stage, and I’ll tell you why: Because a word is not really the problem. It’s hatred, and it is oppression, and it is racism that is the fucking problem – and you [can't] hide the fact that racism exists by going, “You can never ever say this word on stage, it’s bad!” I do a show called Chink-O-Rama and I have another one called Birth of a nASIAN. And I would rather someone go home and say, “Oh my god, I heard a comic say ‘chink’ today! It was really confusing! Because what she was actually saying was that nobody should say the word ‘chink’ but she said the word ‘chink,’ so now I’ really confused!” There, to me, my job is done. Someone’s having a discussion about race and culture.

When I load that gun, I know how to pull the trigger so I don’t hurt anybody, you know. Someone like Michael Richards hurt somebody, but that’s not because he said the word “nigger.” Guess what, motherfuckers? Don’t be afraid of the word, be afraid of the fact that Michael Richards screamed at an audience member and said, “I’ll fucking hang you and stick a fork up your ass!” That’s the fucking problem. He wasn’t deconstructing the meaning of racism, which is a very important part of what we do. As court jesters, we have to say, “Hey see this word that everyone’s been using for a hundred years? It’s fucked!” But just banning language? You’re actually stopping thought and discussion, and we can’t move forward. Now, we’re stuck. Everybody’s walking around on eggshells. Suddenly, it’s okay to say “kike” and “chink” and “dyke” – but you can’t say “nigger?” Suddenly, you’re starting to quantify racism.

[...]

Kate, was Sarah Silverman saying “chink” in her one bit about jury duty different from you saying chink?

KR: You know what, it actually was not. Because her joke was not about the word “chink,” it was about racism. It was actually a very good joke, a very socially responsible joke. And everyone freaked out : “She said ‘chink’!” I’m offended when I see comics get onstage going “…and then I went to the Laundromat. Ching-chong, ching-chong, ching-chong!” Then I’m fucking offended. When someone tells a joke about Asian people and there’s no actual joke – the joke is the Asian people. The joke is [racist-comic voice] the funny way they talkie-talkie! “They don’t use proper diction! Only verb and noun! Verb and noun!” I just heard a comic that I respect doing that fucking joke the other night. An Asian comic. And I was like, “Dude! Write a punch line or you’re just being racist!”

— Excerpted from “A Good Offense” written by Andi Zeisler, in the Loud issue of Bitch Magazine.

I finally caught a rerun of The Cho Show, Margaret Cho’s VH1 reality sitcom-y show.

And I really enjoyed it. Not because I like Cho’s comedy. Not because she’s a woman of color on TV (one more for the team!). But because I can identify with her.

How can a twenty-something heterosexual Iranian-American identify with a thirty-something bisexual Korean-American? We’re both misfits.

Cho’s first episode revolves around her struggle with accepting an award from the KoreAm magazine for the Korean of the Year. She says herself that she’s felt a very cool reception from Koreans in the U.S. and feels at odds with the community because of past experiences. “They want me to perform, and they’re gonna hate me. I don’t play golf, and I’m not a good Korean that way,” Cho tells her parents about her nervousness regarding the award. She states that her biggest fear is “bombing in front of a room full of Koreans,” highlighting perhaps a desire to be accepted by her community for who she is at the same time that she expresses her anger over the lack of acceptance they’ve given her in the past.

Her parents buy her a traditional Korean outfit for a baby boy, dropping major hints at her having children. They pressure Cho by saying that “all their friends” have children and that “you have to have kids” to “become a complete person.” Ouch! They also caution her over her choice of an body-paint “dress” she considers wearing to the award show: “What my friends are going to tell us is how can you allow her to do, you know, something like that,” her father says, as if their reservations about her dress revolve around what their friends (i.e., the community) will think.

Cho is a misfit: she doesn’t look or act like a Korean woman “should,” evidenced by her line of work, her sexuality, her body art, etc. She and her entourage are all made up of those who don’t fit into “mainstream” definitions of “normal”: gay men, an assistant who is only 3’10” and moonlights as a burlesque performer, and plenty of guest stars of all colors, sizes, and shapes.

I can identify with Cho’s ambivalence towards the Korean community because I feel ambivalent about my belonging to my own ethnic and religious communities. I can identify with Cho’s irritation at hints about grandchildren because I’m sick of people hinting that I should get married (different, but still in the “domestic” realm). I can identify with Cho and her ragtag bunch of friends because, despite the fact that they don’t often get “mainstream” acceptance, they live their lives and love each other like everybody else. And they’re funny as hell.

Here’s a clip from the first episode. The Cho Show airs on Thursdays on VH1 at 11 pm EST.

A friend of mine from college recently sent me a link to an AfterEllen.com article about the movie Bitch Slap coming out in December 2008. She asked me for my thoughts and here they are…

I think I might be the wrong person to ask.

Reason being I love gratuitous sex and violence in movies, within reason of course. I loved Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino’s Grindhouse movies. A woman with a gun for a leg killing military created zombies – count me in! Sexy ladies exacting revenge on a psychopathic-misogynistic-vehicular-homicide-loving Kurt Russell – more please! I loved these films so much that after returning them to Netflix I promptly ran out and purchased them, and then made all my friends watch the films with me repeatedly.

I know what you’re thinking that I’m a horrible queer feminist of color, right? Well, I’m going to have to respectfully disagree. And here’s why…

While I hate the way that closet racist and annoying hipster elitist try to use satire to reinforce their supposed superiority and avoid being called bigoted while doing it, I think satire when it’s done right, or at least when it’s read in a critical way, can be extremely subversive. Smart satire can often effectively challenge concepts of power, race, sex, and gender among other things.

There’s a famous example of effective satire that is brought up in Charles Ramirez Berg’s Latino Images in Film: Stereotypes, Subversion, Resistance, known as “stereotypical reversal.” Stereotypical reversal occurs when a movie plays on and invalidates a well-known stereotype by making the viewer confront their own prejudice and bias. The example that Ramirez Berg uses is from the film Flying Down to Rio, when Roger and Belinha are stranded on an island and a bare-chested black man emerges from the surrounding bushes and confronts the couple. Audiences are trained to expect a danger scenario given the location and the fact that the man is black, the viewer might wonder if this “native” is going to kidnap them or harm them in some other way. When the man steps away from the bush it becomes visible that the man is wearing golf slack and shoes, carrying a set of clubs, and when he opens his mouth has a British accent. Turns out they landed in Haiti right next to a country club and the gentleman was looking for a lost ball in the brush when they stumbled upon him. Everyone is made aware of their ignorance and as a result the stereotype is deconstructed.

Satire by its very nature is something that disarms you, most often through comedy or ridicule, and makes you take a hard look at yourself and your fears and biases. The ultimate purpose of satire is to bring about improvement by bringing ones flaws to the surface. So how do B-movies and neo-exploitation films bring about improvement? Well, often they don’t, or at least they don’t at first glance. We’re trained to be passive viewers, but if you’re willing to do the work as a viewer and think critically you’ll see that even the most seemly inane of movies like Death Proof are a comment on systems of power and hierarchy in American culture.

I think a really good recent example is Harold and Kumar. Although on the surface it’s your basic stoner buddy comedy, if you scratch below the surface its actually a very intelligent commentary on masculinity, race, sexuality, and leisure time in American culture. That is not to say that the film doesn’t have its problems, but I think there are moments in the film that are very smart and valuable

While, I can’t conclusively say whether Bitch Slap is a clever neo-exploitation or just stupid and offensive since it hasn’t come out yet, I’ll leave you with what the Co-writers and directors Eric Gruendemann and Rick Jacobson to say. They call Bitch Slap a “feminist, thinking-man’s” exploitation film with a mysterious female narrator who “comments periodically on the folly of humanity, the plight of the human condition and the vagaries of life and love through quoting the likes of Dostoevsky, T.S. Eliot, Sun Tzu and even Buddha.”

Sounds promising.

Check out the trailer and AfterEllen.com article for yourself and let me know what you think.

When is it ok to laugh at comedy based on racial stereotypes?

After our past conversation on Bernie Mac and “in house” jokes and the sudden gruesome ubiquity of Esther Ku, the answer seems to be, Uh, never.

But then, where does that leave Indian Canadian comedian Russell Peters?

This is where I need some help: I freakin’ love Russell Peters. Am I a disgusting hypocrite?

His act is littered with sexism, he’s made a household name for himself with a joke condoning child abuse (somebody gonna get a hurt real bad…), and one of his hottest bits involves mocking South African names. But everyone I know loves him – particularly people of colour, and anti-racist people of colour at that.

Is it because he’s irresistibly likeable? I’d like to think that it takes more than a goofy face to make us abandon our politics. Is it because he’s not only Canadian, but from just outside of Toronto, one of my hometowns? Apparently not, because I was introduced to him by my BFF in Singapore.

I have an inkling as to why it seems ok to like Peters. Last year at VONA, a yearly creative writing workshop for writers of colour, I met the wondrous Junot Díaz who introduced my group to his theory on the Wheel of Tyranny.

Díaz argued that too many books by writers of colour represent only two ethnicities per book: people from the writer’s own community of colour, and white folks.

In these writers’ fictional worlds there are only brown people and white people (The Namesake); or only black folks and white folks in the world (The Colour Purple); or only Chinese people and white people in the world (The Woman Warrior)…In these books, the communities of colour have white folks as their sole interlocutors. What about conversations between different communities of colour? It’s pretty rare that you come across a book like, for eg, Zadie Smith’s White Teeth, which featured a white family, a brown family and a black family.

This lack of real diversity, Díaz argued, creates The Wheel of Tyranny (and if he was here to draw this for us he would), where communities of colour circle constantly around a hub that is white folks, while never communicating with each other. Díaz suggested that in reflecting the experience of other people of colour in our work, we create a home for each other in our art; we show each other that we exist.

Which is arguably what Peters does.

Let’s look at Esther Ku. In the video Latoya posted a while back (see the Esther Ku link above), who is Ku speaking to? In her celebration of yellow fever and her assurances that even Korean people can’t tell each other apart or use chopsticks, she’s always speaking to white audiences – even though when the Last Comic Standing camera pans to the audience, there’s always a few faces of colour.

Along with the fact that these jokes are offensive (and not really funny), they send the message that audiences of colour are not important enough to write jokes for. In fact, all they’re good for is the butt of jokes. Just like ye olde status quo, Ku’s jokes place white folks at the center of everything.

Peters on the other hand talks about relationships between Indians and Chinese folks, between Indians and Jamaicans, between Indians and Latinos. More than this it really seems like Peters is simply trying to make people like himself laugh. There’s something sorta subversive about the fact that he’s playing to himself, instead of pandering to an audience that doesn’t share his experience at all.

Latoya used the phrase “in house jokes” to refer to jokes that communities of colour will only tell to each other. These are jokes that are only funny when told by the POC they make fun of, to a POC audience. Peters’ jokes are different – while they definitely would not be the funny if told by a white person* they work for all stripes of audiences, because they aren’t crafted for a white audience.

Having been told my whole life that Shakespeare and James Joyce were the definition of great (i.e. straight white English-speaking Western dudes), the whole way I saw writing changed when I realised that I could write for myself, and for people like me, instead of having to write for people who really identified with Jane Austen.There can be great power in creating your comedy/writing/art/blog posts for readers of colour, even when your audience is white. Jokes that are for ourselves don’t marginalise or exclude white folks, they just don’t focus on them. Many writers and artists of colour I know are driven primarily by the desire to make art for us, which in itself seems revolutionary when so much art has existed to marginalise us.

But I have to say that my feelings about comedy shift depending on who I view it with. When I used to watch Borat skits at home, I laughed, if not uncomfortably. But when I went to see the Borat movie on the big screen with an audience that was mostly white, I felt uncomfortable and tense throughout most of the movie. Which doesn’t make sense – why is it ok for me to laugh at racist jokes, but not for white folks?

You tell me, is it ok to laugh at Russell Peters? Is it ever ok to laugh at any comedy that makes fun of race?

*They wouldn’t be funny when told by a white person because of the context of institutionalised racism that we live in, where white folks are the dominant culture. Do a search on this site for “reverse racism” and why it doesn’t exist for more info.

[Editor's Note - For those of you who cannot see the videos/audio, I do not have a transcript. But here's a post from Sepia Mutiny that describes one of his sketches, and deconstructs the uneasy lines he plays on. - LDP ]

What responsibilities, if any, do satirists have to their audience? Are they obligated to deliver a message while also making us laugh?

McGRUDER: I don’t think anyone can define the rules for satire. We operate with the message — that’s the easy part. Everyone sits at home with their political opinions. The important thing is making it as funny as possible and knowing when to pull back on the message for the sake of the message…. It’s indulgent to turn off the audience for the sake of preaching — the goal is not to turn off the viewer. … But it can never just [be about the jokes] for me. I’m not like a funny person. I’m not like a comedian. I have things I want to say. … Bill Maher does find a nice balance between the jokes and tackling the serious issues. So few outlets [offer] those issues in a serious fashion.

Do you think a satirist can influence public opinion, be it a viewer or a voter?

McGRUDER: Good satire goes beyond the specific point it’s trying to make and teaches you how to think critically. Even when your favorite cartoonist retires or Colbert wraps it up, you’re not left believing everything they’re telling you. That’s probably what you’re hoping for as a satirist.

[...]

So what’s satire’s role at the end of the day?

McGRUDER: It’s still about imparting a message about the lies a society tells itself. We can all live in collective denial. We can lie to ourselves pretty easily. It’s a challenge. Satire is the least commercially viable form of comedy. … There really is a distaste for being preached at. People have a very low tolerance for it — newspaper audiences have a way higher tolerance for it than others. But it’s tough on TV.

— From The Washington Post’s Comic Riffs blog. Continue reading the full article here.

I am opening a separate thread on this because it is difficult not to ignore. (I just did not want it discussed while discussing the New Yorker cover.)

So, while at a Obama fundraiser, Bernie Mac decided to perform his usual schtick*:

Speaking to about 600 donors at a downtown hotel, Mac joked that he did not understand why Obama would want to run for president.

“I’m proud of him because politics is dirty, especially with Republicans,” he said. “People like rumors. They are going to say things like, you know, ‘You was in the club with Lil’ Kim and you and Kanye West got in a fist fight.’”

Mac went on to riff about hope and offering himself as a running mate, but then added that the campaign might not want him because “I cuss,” which he did, according to a pool report of the event.

“Being a president is tough ’cause you’re not just running the country. You got to run your family too,” Mac said. “Having a black first lady is different. You’re still going have to do the dishes and the laundry and all that…’You got to pick up the kids. You didn’t pick up the kids?’ ‘I just came from Korea, talking about nuclear weapons.’ ‘You were on Air Force One and you couldn’t stop to pick up the kids?’”

He then decided to pull out this hoary old joke:

Toward the end of a 10-minute standup routine at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in downtown Chicago, the 50-year-old star of “The Bernie Mac Show” joked about menopause, sexual infidelity and promiscuity, and used occasional crude language.

“My little nephew came to me and he said, ‘Uncle, what’s the difference between a hypothetical question and a realistic question?’” Mac said. “I said, I don’t know, but I said, ‘Go upstairs and ask your mother if she’d make love to the mailman for $50,000.’”

As the joke continued, the punchline evoked an angry response from at least one person in the audience, who said it was offensive to women.

[Ed Note - Joke ends like this: The joke continued with the mother saying she'd sleep "with anyone" for $50,000 -- and then continuing to include Mac's daughter hypothetically answering the question in the same way . "Hypothetically speaking, we should have $100,000. But realistically speaking we live with two hos." (Source)]

“It’s not funny. Let’s get Barack on,” a man shouted from the crowd, which paid $2,300 each to support the Illinois senator.

About 15 minutes later, Obama tried to smooth things over with a joke of his own.

“We can’t afford to be divided by race. We can’t afford to be divided by region or by class and we can’t afford to be divided by gender, which by the way, that means, Bernie, you’ve got to clean up your act next time,” Obama said. “This is a family affair. By the way, I’m just messing with you, man.”

I made this post an open discussion because there are many different angles from which to view this situation:

1. Why are “universal” jokes ones about gender, including the differences between men and women’s roles in the home?

2. Is there a such thing as an “in house” joke? Why would Bernie Mac tell black-oriented jokes to a mixed crowd?

3. Why would he even go there with the “two whores” joke at a political function? Why is that joke so popular anyway? And is there a deeper aspect to be explored within black gender relations as to why the joke is troubling on multiple levels?

4. What is with Bernie Mac calling Barack a “man’s man?” Does that put his comments into a different light?

5. Why do so many jokes involving black comedians when speaking about the Obamas revolve around images of a demanding, castrating Michelle expecting Barack to jump on demand?

6. Was this a wise message to send as Barack is courting the “women” vote? I am not so sure what the women vote means – it is simpler to say the HRC voters, but it is being presented as a monolithic women vote.

7. Why is it that when I first heard about this story, I zeroed in on the black first lady joke and paid little to no mind to the whore joke. Melissa McEwan focused on the whore joke, and added the black first lady part as an after-thought. I am wondering what that says about how different groups of women approach gender based attacks.

8. There is a larger question of how gender/gender roles are approached in marginalized communities, but I am pretty sure that is going to have to be its own thread. But, in the meantime, feel free to leave your ideas.

The above eight main ideas are what I took from the situation. Feel free to discuss and debate those, or add your own.

Floor is open.

*What is it with people hiring certain comedians and not paying attention to the content of their work? It reminds me of the Black Enterprise/Eddie Griffin gaffe.

In this clip from YouTube, we see Gitmo the Puppet’s first appearance, as well as a subsequent appearance. In Gitmo’s first appearance, he’s introduced as a bearded (and presumably Muslim) detainee of Guantanamo Bay with a fakey “Middle Eastern” accent. (He is also an obvious relative of Elmo, for those of you who can’t see the video. – Ed.) Gitmo pleads, “Tell Gitmo’s family Gitmo is aliiiive.”

In the subsequent appearance, Gitmo appears, calling for the execution (and therefore, according to Jon Stewart, martyrdom) of Sheikh Khalid Mohammed and other defendants who admit to planning terrorist activities. When Stewart questions him about his intentions, Gitmo says, “You can’t handle the truth” and then ululates. In retaliation, Stewart “waterboards” him and tells him not to complain or he’ll go back to the “untrained puppy room.” Cut to Gitmo being dragged around by a dog and wailing, “I’m just a cab driverrrrrrr…”

In Gitmo’s third appearance (starting at the 4.10 mark), we see him “inside” his Guantanamo Bay cell, protesting that the “crazy motherf*ckers locked up down here” shouldn’t be given habeas corpus. His former identity as a “cab driver from Karachi” is replaced with a menacing promise that, if freed, he’ll become a terrorist: “Gitmo go free. Gitmo go home, Gitmo go home to Damascus, get back in taxi cab, fill it with C-4, and drive it into east entrance of British embassy! (ululating)”

Never mind that Karachi and Damascus are in two different countries with two different languages and racial demographics. Either way, he’s “just a cab driver.”

The bearded, accented portrait that Gitmo paints is one of cultural shorthand for the term “terrorist”. Gitmo also reduces Guantanamo Bay inmates to a stereotypical job associated with Middle Eastern and South Asian immigrants. Hey, these are people, remember? Some of which have been unjustly and unconstitutionally imprisoned? Some of whom have family that doesn’t know there they are, whether they are dead or alive?

Having a beard and an accent (and driving a taxi, perhaps) is enough to get you profiled, searched, arrested, and incarcerated—is Gitmo making light of that or reinforcing it?

Either way, I don’t find it funny.

So, while moderating the Interracial Dating with a Vengeance thread, I was doing my best to save the kittens* when someone brought up Esther Ku.

Alvin, writing on the Hyphen blog, says:

What kind of insecure person makes a career basically being self-racist or self-deprecating and saying how much you hate yourself, who you are, and your family?

He points to this Boston Globe article which gives a summary of Ku’s act:

The Korean-American comedian started with the words, ”I don’t really like being Asian, but I’m kind of stuck with it.” That, at least, received a few titters. But when she continues, ”The only good thing about being Asian, really, is it helps you get into college,” the crowd stays silent. It goes downhill from there as she mines the subject of Caucasians adopting Asian babies.

”Nigerian babies cost like 25 cents a day,” says Ku. ”Asian babies cost a lot more because they pay off.”

As the crowd erupts in pained groans and a smattering of uncomfortable laughs, Ku innocently asks, ”Did I go too far?”

Later in the article, the Globe explains the kinds of problems Ku has with her act:

Ku also once found herself in an uncomfortable situation at a Chicago comedy club. She told the joke about Asian and Nigerian babies.

The underlying message of the joke is a cultural commentary about white people who adopt Asian babies, says Ku. ”How unfair it is that people purchase Asian babies like it’s an investment. I don’t mean to degrade Nigerian babies.”

At the Chicago venue, two African-American women didn’t see it that way. When they heard the joke, they demanded the producer stop the show. The women didn’t get an opportunity to confront Ku later; by then, she’d already left the venue. The comic made amends by explaining the joke to them via e-mail.

”That was,” says Ku, ”maybe the strongest reaction that I ever had doing a comedy show.”

I always find it fascinating when people think that by employing racial stereotypes that are still currently in use they are being novel, or lampooning the stereotype. Now, I understand this is a line that all comedians who deal in race have to cross. They know their intent behind the jokes, but they also have to deal with the fallout from making those kind of statements. We saw Dave Chappelle leave a cultural phenomenon and a 50 million dollar contract based on his discomfort with how his social commentary was being received and interpreted. And Chris Rock stopped doing one of his most famous sketches – Niggas vs. Black People – based on certain people justifying their use of the word with Rock’s routine.

But I still think there is a major difference between cleverly done racial commentary as part of a comedy act and the repackaging of stereotypes. Here is a video of one of Esther Ku’s performances:

(Miso funny? Booooooo!)

Readers, what do you think? Nuanced cultural commentary or advanced stereotyping?

——

Aside: There’s a little pet peeve I have and it isn’t specific to one community. I see this all the time, in feminism, in fat acceptance, in other ethnic communities. It’s this kind of line (this one taken from Alvin’s entry on the Hypen blog):

Have you ever heard a black comedian base his/her career on how they hate being Black, how they love watermelon/chicken, and the only good thing about being black is it helps them get into the NFL?

Yes, dammit!

If you are not in the black community and you find yourself trying to ask the question “Would they do this to black people?” the answer is probably yes. You just aren’t privy to it! It’s not your community! Turn on Comicview. Watch Mike Epps’ most recent comedy special. There are way too many people who think that being funny means rolling through a laundry list of racial differences. “Black people do THIS! White people do THAT! My baby momma is trifiling!” Boring, boring, boring. But even some of my favorite comedians do this same playing on stereotypes for laughs. The only difference is that they are actually funny. (To me, anyway.) So while I may watch them, I’m not going to pretend that Katt Williams’ “Never in the history of Niggadom” bits are not problematic – they just aren’t his whole appeal. The same thing with Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle and Wanda Sykes. But for every one mega star comedian playing with the boundaries, there are thousands of hacks trying to push black stereotypes for fun and profit.

*To understand the “save the kittens” reference, go back to that thread and search for the term “kittens.”

I am generally amused by Family Guy, and tend to watch it if it is on television that day though I generally don’t bother to tune in to new episodes. So, when I heard the black character Cleveland was getting a spin-off show, I was intrigued…and wondering what the hell they would do because I find Cleveland kind of boring. I would much rather have watched a Quagmire spin-off.

So then I look at the promo still on Spill:

Did anyone else’s what-the-fuck-o-meter just go off?

It looks like the cast of Family Guy, a bit browner and with one notable exception. Cleveland’s stepdaughter, the stand-in for Meg, looks like a straight up stereotype. Strange when everyone else closely resembles their FG dopplegangers.

The description of the show provides a bit more insight (my emphasis in bold):

HE CLEVELAND SHOW (working title) (Sundays, 9:30-10:00 PM ET/PT): Many years ago, CLEVELAND BROWN (voiced by Mike Henry) was a high school student madly in love with a beautiful girl named DONNA. Much to his dismay, his love went unrequited, and Donna wound up marrying another man. Cleveland once told Donna he would always love her, and if this man ever done her wrong, he’d be there when she called. Well, this man done her wrong. Donna’s husband skipped town with another woman, leaving Donna with a daughter and a baby. Now she’s come to Cleveland and offered him another chance at love. Unattached after the Loretta-Quagmire debacle and true to his word, Cleveland joyously accepts and he and CLEVELAND JR. move to Stoolbend, VA, to join their new family. Once in Stoolbend, Cleveland has a few surprises in store for him, including a flirtatious new stepdaughter, a 5-year-old stepson who loves the ladies, as well as a collection of neighbors that includes a loudmouth redneck couple, a British family seemingly stuck in the Victorian era and a family of bears living at the end of the block. FAMILY GUY was only the beginning. Get ready for THE CLEVELAND SHOW (working title)!

Skeptical, dear readers, skeptical.

I quite liked Spill commenter Hardcore Souma’s take:

I agree it all looks kind of old hat, with the anthropormorphic characters (in the vein of Brian and Klaus), but I like McFarlane and I am willing to give him a chance. He just got a 100 million dollar check from FOX with “PLEASE SAVE OUR NETWORK” written on the comment line.

That being said…I do hope that he steers away from the racial thing a little more than he has with FG. It’s not that I’m offended…it just a) doesn’t work because Seth M. has little to NO perspective on black people and b) it just isn’t funny.

At any rate, we won’t know much of anything until the series premieres in 2009.

In the meantime, what are your first impressions? Do we give Seth McFarlane and the FG staff the benefit of the doubt based on the type of comedy they create? Or is the blatant stereotyping too problematic to be redeemed with a bunch of quick one-liners?

(via The YBF)

Okay, y’all – who saw the movie over the weekend?

If you did not see the movie because you found the first H & K too sexist, I am here right now to tell you that you made the right choice because the second movie is even worse. (Though, you do get to see three different men breakdown over their respective lost loves and one of the biggest misogynists get their comeuppance.)

If you have not yet seen the movie, please do not read any further because here there be spoilers.

Some scattered thoughts…

* I have been fuming about this since Saturday night. I sit through a whole movie designed for the titillation of men. Fair enough. I knew what I was getting into. But what the fuck was up with that tease? I watch fifteen different vaginas roll by, catch a glimpse of a stunt dick and that’s all cool – but when John Cho and Kal Penn drop trou you do the cut away?

WTF!?!?!?

Where is the consideration for the women!?!?!?

Who the hell is responsible for this travesty? Is it the MPAA? The directors? The actors? I want names dammit! Parity in nudity!

I ought to start a petition.

Or at the very least, lobby for the director’s cut to include it. Anyway, moving on…

* How bad is it that I missed the black stereotype joke? I had no fucking clue why dude was pouring “grape pop” on the ground until one of the other guys called out “You got any kool-aid?”

Ooooh….

* Interesting that they manage to do a throw down with extremists and manage to mention that they weren’t Muslims, but “even if [they] were, it doesn’t mean we’re terrorists!”

* Goth John Cho. ~Squee!~

* I never, ever wanted to have a mental image of a bag of weed with a vagina. Thanks for that one…

* As an intentional nod to the creators, only the Jewish characters were allowed to live up to their stereotype.

And, along those lines – fuck you, Tom Carson. Now that I’ve seen the movie, your review makes less sense.

* They shot Neil Patrick Harris!

*I am leaving the Bush role alone for the moment.

* Love the poem – who wrote that? That was so fabulously weird and dorky.

That’s what stood out most strongly in my mind. Your thoughts?

Living Single

That one little comment uttered on the metro brought back one of my favorite Regine lines of all time, after she broke up with the toy maker guy – “Of course the doll is me! It comes with five interchangeable wigs!”*

And with that, I found myself scouring the internet looking for information on Living Single. I remember watching the reruns around 1996 and 1997 – I was in middle school at the time. Wondering if my memories of the show withstood the test of time, I watched a few episodes on YouTube - and I was pleased to find out that the show has gotten better with age, now that I understand a lot more of the references.

A few things that stand out to me now:

1. The show was excellent with its portrayals of black love. Just excellent. Sinclair and Overtons’ relationship was a given, but all the other characters had dalliances back and forth that were for the most part, respectful and loving. I’m wondering what happened to these kinds of portrayals of black romance.

2. Their lifestyles look decidedly normal. Though I remember reading criticism somewhere that the kind of brownstone they had in New York would probably be out of reach, watching the show as an adult reinforces to me that the 90s were a time of more realistic TV. There are four successful professional women on the show, but only one lives alone (Max.) More often than not, the people on the show were dressed down in jeans, jerseys, and in Sinclair’s case, overalls. And what’s even better to me is that they act like friends. Even within the ridiculous comedy set ups, the dialogue is gifted in showing how people actually talk and relate to each other.

3. Everyone was doing something of note – check out the descriptions of the characters:

The series focuses on two different households in one brownstone (although, as the later seasons revealed, there are more apartments in the building): one shared by a trio of upward-mobile women and another shared by a pair of male friends who have known each other since they spent their youth in Cleveland, Ohio. Khadijah James, a hard-working editor and publisher of the fictional urban independent monthly Flavor, shares an apartment with her sweet but naïve cousin Synclaire (originally the role of Synclaire was to be played by British rapper, Monie Love, a long-time friend and music collaborator of Queen Latifah), an aspiring actress who works as Khadijah’s receptionist and has an affinity for Troll dolls; and her childhood friend Regine Hunter, an image-conscious boutique buyer who was in constant search of a well-to-do man to spend her life with, often referring to said potential man as her “Chocolate Ken” and later became a costume assistant for a soap opera called Palo Alto with a fondness for gossip and wigs. Maxine “Max” Shaw, a sharp-tongued attorney and Khadijah’s best friend, stops by frequently to share her unique insights and make sure the girls’ refrigerator isn’t overstocked.

Living in the apartment above are Overton Wakefield Jones, a friendly handyman who holds deep affection for Synclaire; and Kyle Barker, a handsome stockbroker whose constant verbal sparring with Max does little to mask their obvious sexual attraction.

And the best part is by the end of the show, all of the characters have shown some kind of growth within their careers.

4. It occurs to me that Kyle and Overton may have been the first metrosexuals on TV. Watching some of the back episodes I was shocked to see how nice their apartment was – especially when compared to Khadijah’s. They devote themselves to their grooming habits with almost religious devotion and are much more image conscious than their female counterparts. After watching one episode in which Kyle complains that Overton got hair in his oatmeal soap, I started to wonder if the Metrosexual Guide to Style owes them a check.

5. The Living Single intro is still on the internet, though it is cut out of most of the videos on YouTube. Still as good as I remember.

Finally, some fun trivia!

From the Wiki:

* Future Academy Award nominee Terrence Howard appeared in the first-season episode “The Hand That Robs the Cradle” as a college student involved with Maxine (Erika Alexander). Howard and Alexander would later co-star in the Showtime drama Street Time.
Queen Latifah and Erika Alexander both starred in the 1998 TV miniseries Mama Flora’s Family (based upon the novel by Alex Haley and David Stevens).

* The first-season episode “U.N.I.T.Y.” takes its name from the Queen Latifah song of the same name, and the plot of the episode relies heavily upon themes reflected in that song. An excerpt from Latifah’s video for “U.N.I.T.Y.” is featured during the episode’s closing credits.

* Before portraying surgeon Preston Burke on Grey’s Anatomy, Isaiah Washington appeared as Dr. Charles Roberts, an anesthesiologist who became a love interest for Khadijah.

* Erika Alxander and T.C. Carson reprised their characters (Max and Kyle) on an episode of Half & Half, another Yvette Lee Bowser series. In this episode, they are engaged with a child which tells how their characters’ relationship lasted even after the show finale.

And from IMDB:

*Many main cast members of “Different World” appeared on the show: Jasmine Guy as a psychologist, Kadeem Hardison as Khadijah’s reporter-rival-romantic-interest, Darryl Bell as Max’s romantic-interest, Cree Summer as Overton’s romantic-interest and Charmin Brown as Khadijah’s and Max’s college friend.

And while the “memorable quotes” section is a bit on the skimpy side, there is still a lot to laugh about.

*Couldn’t find the exact quote, but y’all get the gist.

Stuff White People Like has been linked by about 20 of the blog feeds I read on the regular. That’s saying a lot. I finally decided to go check it out to see what I was missing.

Reading the blog with my boyfriend, I was amused – until my boyfriend cracked “You know, you like half of this stuff too. By SWPL standards, you could be white.”

Less amused.

Sure, I like yoga, tea, wine, and Mos Def like anyone else. And I love having black friends. But I scored 27 out of 84 on the Stuff White People Like for a 32% whiteness factor. Looks like I don’t have to trade in my race card just yet!

I talked to Hae about this, and she pointed out that I’m Asian anyway. Which, again, I do protest. Why can’t I just be a black person with diverse interests? Why do I have to magically transform into different ethnicities all the time?

Luckily for me, there are a few other sites to check my “other race” quotient.

Stuff Asian People Like

In the same vein as SWPL, Stuff Asian People Like serves up semi-stereotypical notes on a culture from those who live it each day. From Plush Toys and Purikura to Honda Civics and Chopsticks, I was also amused at this site.

However, there is one crucial difference between SAPL and SWPL – Asian people have more than a few things to be pissed about. So, SAPL occassionally becomes a platform to combat ignorance. Exhibit A – The Anime Post:

WE LOVE ANIME! It is part of the asian culture. We embrace it. The multi-billion dollar industry has stretched from the minuscule islands of Japan all the way to the comic book shops of Europe, Asia, and the Americas. However, there are many types of anime lovers: those who try to be asian, and those who are full-blooded asians. Being white doesn’t make someone conservative. Being African American doesn’t make someone a professional basketball player. Likewise, being an anime lover does not automatically make you asian.

Check the breakdown:

1) Those who think that Anime is all Japan has to offer. Let’s get this straight. Japan has other things to offer? What about that Tiny MP3 Player with 40gb of storage. What about that cell phone that works all around the world or housemaid robot? What about those thousand-dollar DLP televisions, fuel-efficient cars, and electronics we could never dream of in our wildest imaginations? Let’s get one point across. Anime is not the only Japanese product.

2) Those who try to become Japanese. Asians are very envious of the Japanese race. They love the fact that it has progressed so immensely over the past hundred years. They love the fact that it is isolated from the communist corruption in China and Southeastern Asia. However, take a second to ponder your roots. If you are not asian, do not try to be asian just because you don’t fit in. Don’t say that you are going to become as “Japanese” as possible, and plan to move to Japan to escape the “freak moniker” because chances are, if you move to Japan to buy all the anime and manga you want, you will be considered a freak not only by the Japanese, but by people you know. Leave the “being asian” to the asians, and quit saying things like: “baka” and “sugoi“.

3) Those who think that reading Anime makes them know everything about Japan. This is the largest pet peeve. Now we all know that forlorn kid that sits in class reading their manga like they own it. They take the Japanese classes and are able to understand the language to the capacity-level of a 5 year old. What’s the point? They aren’t asian. Asians are asian. “they’ll translate idioms literally – like ‘kanazuchi’, meaning ‘bad swimmer’, they’ll call ‘iron hammer’, the literal translation. So you get nonsensical sentences like “Oh that girl, she’s an iron hammer”. They’ll also translate false cognates incorrectly – like ’saabisu’ usually means ‘free’, not ’service’. Anyway, everybody makes mistakes, but when these people make mistakes, their mistakes get taken as truth by hordes of other Japanophiles.” -Bitter Asian Men

See, that right there deserves to be on a poster, to be displayed at every anime convention until the end of time.

Scoring 12 out of 28 gives me a 43% Asian factor. Looks like I’m still black, but I think my 43% score should be on a tee-shirt somewhere. Maybe then servers at Korean restaurants will stop giving me forks! (Come on y’all, I’m here once a month. No, I don’t need a fork, and no, I don’t want a coke. Damn.)

Stuff Black People Love

Stuff Black People Love was meant to be a social statement. From their about section:

If you are looking for the Black themed copy of stuffwhitepeoplelike.org, you will not find it here! I think that is a great site, but I’m not presenting a scientific study of what black people love. I liked the concept, but it’s a bit mean and unapologetic. This site is meant to be an exploration of Black Culture and things we are fond of. Black People are not Monolithic. However, I do suggest you check out StuffEducatedBlackPeopleLike for a good take on the subject.

Interesting.

SBPL talks about black love, the “Everybody Loves a Black Girl” tee shirts, and Finding Out a Criminal is Not Black.

The poster even ponders the purpose of her blog in the entry “Is there something wrong with fried chicken?”

In creating this blog, I’ve come to a crossroads. A list of things that black people like or love is an invitation to controversy. I knew this at the beginning. One of the things that keeps getting mentioned to me is that if I post things like Fried Chicken, Chitterlings, or Rap Music…it’s going to be perceived as racist.

I’m an African American Woman and racism is nothing new to me.

What I don’t understand is why Black people would say that the concept that we love fried chicken is simply negative? We do LOVE Fried Chicken!!! What is racist about that? What is so wrong with Chitterlings? These foods are part of our history, our entire history. When did they become demonized? Does your grandmother feel bad that she can make some delicious fried chicken? Was your great grandfather ashamed at all of the pork in his family’s diet? Are we now ashamed??? Do we think that our love of fried food is a secret? I don’t see a whole lot of Vegan or Thai resturants in Black communities. Do you?

[...]

I’m sure you have all seen the StuffWhitePeopleLike.org site (great site) and want to see something that mirrors that. Well, I’ve come to the conclusion in the short time that I’ve launched this blog that it’s impoossible to do that without offending some people or presenting a list that would not be much different. The uniqueness of SWPL, the thing that makes it interesting, is it’s authenticity. When you read it, you think of white people you know and the interactions you’ve had with White folk. StuffBlackPeopleLove.com would not be authentic without making note of things that some might feel are stereotypical or racist. Ask yourself, “When I think of things that Black People love, what do I think of?” I’m sure you’ll smile, but I’m also sure that some of the things that come to mind might not be the more positive aspects of our culture.

The site has since changed hands, but it looks like they are continuing in the vein of positive conversation.

It’s a little hard to score this one, as the posts are mostly designed to pose questions, but I’ll give myself a score in the 90% range as I agree with most of what is on this blog.

Stuff Educated Black People Love

Back to the basic idea, Stuff Educated Black People Like also follows the format of SWPL and SAPL.

Exploring topics like Turkey Bacon/Sausage, Natural Hair and First Fridays, SEBPL actually does a great job of lampooning one specific milieu in the African-American community.

Strangely, it was here where I scored fairly low. I scored 5 out of 14, which gave me a 36% Educated Blackness factor, beating my whiteness factor by a scant 4 percentage points.

Ouch, but understandable. While I can definitely get down with Neo-Soul, Barack Obama, Turkey Sausage/Bacon, Natural Hair, and Poetry Slams the other stuff I have to take a pass on.

I have no problem with baked chicken, I just don’t eat it very often. And getting my undergrad is killing me, so I can’t really speak to a love of advanced degrees.

Some commentary cuts a wee bit close to the bone though.

For example, the post on Talking About Uneducated Black People. Check out the interactions in the comments section:

Tippy/Keyonna // March 6, 2008 at 11:14 pm

I find this sight very offensive and stereotypical. It is not funny and it’s not a joke. This doesn’t offend just educated black people or uneducated black people, but it offends the whole race. I am truly appalled by the ignorance that is displayed throughout the whole article.

thatchick // March 7, 2008 at 12:28 am

Tippy/Keyonna – you find this “sight” offensive? I find your spelling offensive.

As an EBP, I would like to say that I am quite embarrassed by ghetto people. I know plenty of uneducated black people, but they aren’t necessarily ghetto.

To me, ghetto people are INCESSANTLY loud, wear very very very cheap clothing to classy events, attach bad weave to nappy hair, have bass rattling their rusting doors off…oh yeah, and ask questions like:

“How your day was?”
and
“I get 5 asparagus for 6$???” (loud as hell…)

a.eye // March 7, 2008 at 1:01 am

You should read my take on all this http://1219sibmtt.blogspot.com/2007/08/message-to-brown-people-in-usa.html

It is a huge cycle of internalized racism. Thinking you are better than others, or thinking you are not good enough.

ennuiprayer // March 7, 2008 at 5:01 pm

I loved it.
It’s the same way with Hispanics – in my case, Mexican descent. Those of us who bothered to go for an education are embarrassed that the stereotype follows us because of a few. But attack one of them, and we shift into action. It’s odd, really.

Amber B // March 7, 2008 at 5:40 pm

I have to disagree…I know plenty of loud and obnoxious people who have degrees and I don’t talk about or look down on anyone who doesn’t hold a degree…I know plenty of people who didn’t go to college but they are making more now than most people who did because they have other talents so I wouldn’t dare get up on a high horse and think I’m better than someone with less education but who’s making a better living than I am.

And so on.

I’ll be keeping an eye on SEBPL, to see how the blog progresses.

That’s about all for now. If anyone knows of a Stuff Latinos Like or Stuff Desis like, let me know in the comments.

I’d love to get my score from those perspectives – if for nothing else, than to fill in the extra bubbles on my race card.